Kitsch, LLC v. Lauren Peterson et al.
Infringement action filed 16 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 28 Feb 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11206908B2US401492A
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-06657
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- C.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 16 Sep 2022 – 28 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 165 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Settled
- Products & marks
- Hair tie extraction implement · PAVING-BLOCK
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Hair tie extraction implement
A hair tie extraction implement adapted to remove hair ties and/or elastomeric bands entangled with hair from the head of a wearer. The hair tie extraction implement comprises a grippable shank, a hook, a razor blade, and an outwardly rising bill.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 28 Dec 2021
- Est. expiry
- 14 Dec 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MURRAY, LAUREN
- Classification
- A45D8/00A46B9/02A46B15/00B26B11/00
- Examiner
- GILBERT, WILLIAM V
Paving-block
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 Apr 1889
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- E01C5/00
Parties of record
Kitsch, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Carley G. Mak · Mark A. Cantor · Stephen C. Chuck · Victoria J. Tsoong · William E. Thomson
- Firm
- Brooks Kushman PC, Chuck & Tsoong LLP
Lauren Peterson
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Barden Todd Patterson · Kyrie K. Cameron · Lewis E. Hudnell III · Stanley H. Thompson Jr.
- Firm
- Hudnell Law Group PC, Patterson & Sheridan LLP
- Also named
- Lolly, LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Carley G. Mak | Kitsch, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Mark A. Cantor | Kitsch, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Stephen C. Chuck | Kitsch, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Victoria J. Tsoong | Kitsch, LLC | Plaintiff |
| William E. Thomson | Kitsch, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Barden Todd Patterson | Lauren Peterson | Defendant |
| Kyrie K. Cameron | Lauren Peterson | Defendant |
| Lewis E. Hudnell III | Lauren Peterson | Defendant |
| Stanley H. Thompson Jr. | Lauren Peterson | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The parties filed a notice of settlement on February 27, 2023. This action is therefore dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. For 30 days from the date of this order, the Court retains jurisdiction to vacate this order and to reopen the action nunc pro tunc on motion of any party. By operation of this order and without further court action, the dismissal in this case will convert to a dismissal with prejudice on the 31st day, absent a timely motion to vacate and reopen. If the case is reopened, the parties should be prepared for an expedited trial schedule. The Court expects the parties to finalize their settlement or else move to reopen the case for prosecution within the next 30 days as ordered above. Should the parties file any document that contains a request to extend the deadline for purposes of completing the settlement, counsel for both parties shall submit at least seven days before the deadline a declaration with a detailed timeline of all the efforts made to complete the settlement, and the parties shall be prepared to appear in court with a client representative to explain why the settlement could not be completed in the time allowed. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Case 2:22-cv-06657 · C.D. Cal. · closed 28 February 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:22-cv-06657?
2:22-cv-06657 is a patent infringement action brought by Kitsch, LLC against Lauren Peterson, filed on 16 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 28 February 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-06657?
US11206908B2 (“Hair tie extraction implement”), assigned to PETERSON, LAUREN, currently inactive; US401492A (“Paving-block”), currently inactive. The record also lists Hair tie extraction implement and PAVING-BLOCK.
How was case 2:22-cv-06657 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: “The parties filed a notice of settlement on February 27, 2023. This action is therefore dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. For 30 days from the date of this order, the Court retains jurisdiction to vacate this order and to reopen the action nunc pro tunc on motion of any party. By operation of this order and without further court action, the dismissal in this case will convert to a dismissal with prejudice on the 31st day, absent a timely motion to vacate and reopen. If the case is reopened, the parties should be prepared for an expedited trial schedule. The Court expects the partie
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:22-cv-06657 take?
165 calendar days, from filing on 16 Sep 2022 to closure on 28 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-06657?
Carley G. Mak, Mark A. Cantor, Stephen C. Chuck, Victoria J. Tsoong and William E. Thomson are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Kitsch. Barden Todd Patterson, Kyrie K. Cameron, Lewis E. Hudnell III and Stanley H. Thompson Jr. appear for defendant Lauren Peterson.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-06657 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.